Is there an objective world?

[thuscomeone]

Dharma Dan's forum (Dharma Overground) is a good place if you are going to start on practice and have any practice questions on Vipassana

 

p.s., I see you're still schooling, just curious how old are you?

20.

[xabir2005]

20.

I see.. good to see more people around my age who's into these stuff

[thuscomeone]

I see.. good to see more people around my age who's into these stuff

Definitely. My friends have absolutely no interest in this. I figure that it is good to start learning this young as it is pretty serious stuff.

 

I just wanted to also say thanks again for helping me out on the topic of non dual awareness in that old thread. It really got me moving forward. Now I think I see that it is a lot simpler than I imagined it to be. For a while, I was trying to create or acquire some fixed experience of awareness or presence. My problem was in thinking that

non duality meant a merging of two things. Rather it is precisely that there aren't two things to begin with. There is only mind which is just seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. - all sensations. Now I see that it's really just effortless. Any striving just take one away from what is always present. That passage on thusness' blog from daniel ingram really helped me out.

 

"Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality."

Edited January 1, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Marblehead]

I've thought it over and...there is no objective world. All there is is mind - seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking, etc. These (mind) make up the totality of our "reality" as sentient beings. Just try and find anything outside of seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, thinking in your own experience. Good luck. And it is useless to talk about anything outside of our own experience isn't it? I can't believe I didn't see this before. It is so simple. Conditioning runs very deep I guess. Anyway...all is mind.

 

I am glad you arrived at a conclusion. It is wrong, in my opinion, but that doesn't really matter, does it?

 

There is no mind without an objective universe. That is fact. So you just go ahead and see, hear, feel, smell, taste, and think with your senses that don't exist objectively.

 

But, if you have the time, please explain to me how the universe has existed for 13.7 billion years without you being present to subjectively observe it.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Hello Xabir2005,

 

Your friend does not even use the Hindu/Sanskrit terms of Brahma and Brahman correctly - and he has been in study for ten years??? Further, he presents Hiunduism as if it is only one school? (which by no means is so!) His key arguments and summations related to separation, "illusion" and Brahman in Hinduism are not correct in the way many Hindus see these subjects, and for many such is not held with a the deeper understanding of the Upanishads. (and or with other doctrine and revealed teachings)

 

There is that Buddhist saying that goes something like, "Enlightenment is samsara fully and correctly understood" (which I feel is a very good one)

 

Anyway, imo this commentary you've posted goes to show the continuing misunderstandings by many Buddhists (even at very high levels!) when it comes to the vastness of Hinduism! In a nutshell, any time anyone uses generalizations and stereotypes to try and nail down Buddhism or Hinduism to one school or one conceptual meaning through the limits of intellectually and more or less argumentively defined parameters, then such problematic debates will continue to arise. (and also be cherished :-)

 

Believe what you will. Good luck,

 

Om

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Consistently we return to this forum, we bring the physicallity of our bodies to the physical computer and craft words and phrases to communicate the workings of our 'minds'.. these 'minds' are networked via the physical experiences like computers, and through much more esoteric mediums.. these individualized 'minds' utilize physical manifestations to effect relationships within the undifferentiated Whole mind.. the individualized mind is the 'interface' between individualized relationships and the undifferentiated Whole (Source).. and, there is NO heirarchy, no superiority.. whether physical, mental, or spiritual, it is a 'Singularity' in the 'Process' of discovering its own nature..Whether Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, or Nihlist, etc.. it is ALL the Natural process of 'self-discovery', "As above, so below".. we/us/Life simply mirror the self-discovery of the Source, we ARE that self-discovery..

 

Be well..

[ralis]

yes

 

*sigh* it's truly impossible to talk to you ralis.. pointless argumentation. you did it with VH and you are doing it with me, but i'm not VH. I don't enjoy the passion and anger of argument that you seem to thrive on, so please don't feel offended that I stop responding to your posts, it's nothing personal. I just find your karmic patterns extremely annoying and I don't want to help you perpetuate them.

 

 

I guess you just can't answer simple questions. Angry? Exactly how am I showing anger? Displaying anger in writing? That is a stretch for me to put that kind of emotion in writing. I don't engage in ad hominem attacks and only ask for clear explanations. Am I being unreasonable in that regard? Explanations from your experiences in Buddhism are what I would like to hear. 1st. person would be great.

 

You and VH come into this Taoist forum and rant ad infinitum about untenable postulates of Buddhism. If you can't explain clearly your belief system to your audience, then intelligent readers will question the validity of what you posit as so called truth.

 

In regards to your thoughts on depression, I have yet to understand where you obtained that idea.

 

Buddhism or any other ism are just belief systems.

 

 

ralis

Edited January 1, 2010 by ralis

[xabir2005]

Buddhism or any other ism are just belief systems.

ralis

Buddhism, like science, is a system whereby its practitioners can test and verify claims made by other scientists/spiritual practitioners, simply looking by themselves. That you have not verified those for yourselves does not mean it is a mere belief system since countless others, and you can too, verify for yourselves in your experience.

 

See

 

Buddha:

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

Hello Xabir2005,

 

Your friend does not even use the Hindu/Sanskrit terms of Brahma and Brahman correctly - and he has been in study for ten years??? Further, he presents Hiunduism as if it is only one school? (which by no means is so!) His key arguments and summations related to separation, "illusion" and Brahman in Hinduism are not correct in the way many Hindus see these subjects, and for many such is not held with a the deeper understanding of the Upanishads. (and or with other doctrine and revealed teachings)

 

There is that Buddhist saying that goes something like, "Enlightenment is samsara fully and correctly understood" (which I feel is a very good one)

 

Anyway, imo this commentary you've posted goes to show the continuing misunderstandings by many Buddhists (even at very high levels!) when it comes to the vastness of Hinduism! In a nutshell, any time anyone uses generalizations and stereotypes to try and nail down Buddhism or Hinduism to one school or one conceptual meaning through the limits of intellectually and more or less argumentively defined parameters, then such problematic debates will continue to arise. (and also be cherished :-)

 

Believe what you will. Good luck,

 

Om

Firstly, Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche is not my friend, I have not met him, though I have dreamt of being in his presence. Thusness, who is another guy, is my friend, and I have met him personally many times and discuss often with him and have learnt a lot from him. Both of them are highly realised.

 

However, it is a fact that Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche has joined the Vedantic tradition and studied under it for many years. I do not see any fault about Rinpoche's statements of Advaita, and neither do any other Vedantist as far as I am aware of. His statements about Vedanta in general, in particular its tenets about Brahman as the Ultimate Reality is a fundamental teaching in all Hindu schools generally. And he explained very clearly how this basic tenet is fundamentally different from that of the Buddhist.

 

Of course, if you compare Kashmir Shaivism with Advaita Vedanta, K.S. is more clear about the non-duality aspect since it does not consider the world to be an illusion but a manifestation of Shiva/Brahman/whatever you name it. (Advaita Vedanta however does go into this aspect sometimes too, as explained in statements like 'The World is illusory, Brahman alone is real, Brahman is the World') However, the basic tenet of Brahman/Shiva/etc as Ultimate Reality still holds in this tradition. In Buddhism, we do not consider a non-dual Absolute (as in Thusness Stage 4) to be the final realisation.

Edited January 1, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

"I mean...all is mind. Can you find anything but mind in your experience?..." thuscomeone.

 

Yes, but not by the power of mind. I think an idea here is that the "beyond the beyond" is not dependent on mind experience for if it was it would suffer as an identity caught up in changing mind experiences.

 

Imo "mind" is obviously a problematic term since it used in so many ways to try and mean so much.

 

Om

[xabir2005]

Edited January 1, 2010 by xabir2005

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

We/us/Life are Consciousness incarnate, manifested in a tangible reality.. we are freewilled, thereby revealing Consciousness to itself.. Consciousness is intangible, Yin.. We/us/Life are Tangible, Yang.. it is no more complex than that.. the 'isms' whatever they may be are just experiences revealing aspects of the nature of Consciousness to itself..

 

Be well..

[3bob]

Buddhism, like science, is a system whereby its practitioners can test and verify claims made by other scientists/spiritual practitioners, simply looking by themselves. That you have not verified those for yourselves does not mean it is a mere belief system since countless others, and you can too, verify for yourselves in your experience.

 

See

 

Buddha:

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

Firstly, Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche is not my friend, I have not met him, though I have dreamt of being in his presence. Thusness, who is another guy, is my friend, and I have met him personally many times and discuss often with him and have learnt a lot from him. Both of them are highly realised.

 

However, it is a fact that Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche has joined the Vedantic tradition and studied under it for many years. I do not see any fault about Rinpoche's statements of Advaita, and neither do any other Vedantist as far as I am aware of. His statements about Vedanta in general, in particular its tenets about Brahman as the Ultimate Reality is a fundamental teaching in all Hindu schools generally. And he explained very clearly how this basic tenet is fundamentally different from that of the Buddhist.

 

Of course, if you compare Kashmir Shaivism with Advaita Vedanta, K.S. is more clear about the non-duality aspect since it does not consider the world to be an illusion but a manifestation of Shiva/Brahman/whatever you name it. (Advaita Vedanta however does go into this aspect sometimes too, as explained in statements like 'The World is illusory, Brahman alone is real, Brahman is the World') However, the basic tenet of Brahman/Shiva/etc as Ultimate Reality still holds in this tradition. In Buddhism, we do not consider a non-dual Absolute (as in Thusness Stage 4) to be the final realisation.

 

I see above that you have dropped the term "Brahma" as previously used in your quote... as far as I've studied, (which is not all that deep) Brahma normally refers to the God Brahma, which as you apparently already know is not seen as the final realization by many of various Hindu tradition(s). Someone (the teacher you mention) with so much study making such an error between Brahma and Brahman does not compute for me? Are you also saying that he has now left Buddhism and joined Vedanta? and implying that he is highly realized and authority on both ways? Frankly, that is also kind of hard to compute, but not impossible.

 

Would you agree that the tool of the mind can only speculate on the "beyond of the beyond" of Buddhism - regardless of what it considers that to be; and that that same tool can do no better than to specualte on non-dualism in Hinduism?

 

Om

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

We/us/Life are Consciousness incarnate, manifested in a tangible reality.. we are freewilled, thereby revealing Consciousness to itself.. Consciousness is intangible, Yin.. We/us/Life are Tangible, Yang.. it is no more complex than that.. the 'isms' whatever they may be are just experiences revealing aspects of the nature of Consciousness to itself..

 

Be well..

 

I cannot discuss the Buddhist concepts that are being presented above so I will just say that I agree with what you said above and leave it at that.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

LOL, Marblehead, i feel your pain.. for an 'ism' concerned with 'emptiness', i would be hard-pressed to find more conceptual complexity.. clearly, simplicity is not a Buddhist principle..

 

Be well..

[ralis]

Greetings..

 

LOL, Marblehead, i feel your pain.. for an 'ism' concerned with 'emptiness', i would be hard-pressed to find more conceptual complexity.. clearly, simplicity is not a Buddhist principle..

 

Be well..

 

I have repeatedly asked for simple clear explanations and what I receive are complex postulates.

Not even a 1st. person account of experience. In general, Buddhists are just mental parrots. Therefor, that is why Buddhism is just another belief system i.e, tribal.

 

 

 

ralis

Edited January 1, 2010 by ralis

[xabir2005]

I see above that you have dropped the term "Brahma" as previously used in your quote... as far as I've studied, (which is not all that deep) Brahma normally refers to the God Brahma, which as you apparently already know is not seen as the final realization by many of various Hindu tradition(s). Someone (the teacher you mention) with so much study making such an error between Brahma and Brahman does not compute for me? Are you also saying that he has now left Buddhism and joined Vedanta? and implying that he is highly realized and authority on both ways? Frankly, that is also kind of hard to compute, but not impossible.

 

Would you agree that the tool of the mind can only speculate on the "beyond of the beyond" of Buddhism - regardless of what it considers that to be; and that that same tool can do no better than to specualte on non-dualism in Hinduism?

 

Om

I and Thusness do not use the term 'Brahma' but 'Brahman' to describe the ultimate reality since we are aware of the confusion. However, of course it does not mean Archaya Mahashridar Shridar Rana Rinpoche is not aware of the difference of which he clearly is. 'Brahma' is simply the word he use in place of the word 'Brahman', just as for Kashmir Shaivist they use the word 'Shiva' in place of 'Brahman'.

 

Also, if you have read the article you would know that Buddhism does not teach an ultimate reality beyond phenomena. Also, it is not that what they have written is a speculation, for it is a description of what they have gone through and what they have realised.

[3bob]

Wow Xabir2005,

 

That was a long quote... thanks for the extra effort :-) I'll have to ponder some...

 

Anyway, to me the mind of all things is complex when looked upon with thought, while the purity and truth that shines through all of mind is not complex.

 

So it seems that we have not agreed upon the meaning and use of the term "mind". No biggy, unless we want to end up spending the rest of our lives becoming experts and authorities on arguing such meaning.

 

Hell TzuJanLi, Those are some great submissions on your part, thank you

 

Om

[xabir2005]

[ralis]

[3bob]

I and Thusness do not use the term 'Brahma' but 'Brahman' to describe the ultimate reality since we are aware of the confusion. However, of course it does not mean Archaya Mahashridar Shridar Rana Rinpoche is not aware of the difference of which he clearly is. 'Brahma' is simply the word he use in place of the word 'Brahman', just as for Kashmir Shaivist they use the word 'Shiva' in place of 'Brahman'.

 

Also, if you have read the article you would know that Buddhism does not teach an ultimate reality beyond phenomena. Also, it is not that what they have written is a speculation, for it is a description of what they have gone through and what they have realised.

 

the "unborn and undying"... all the rest comes and goes.

[xabir2005]

Is this your experience? Are you just repeating a collective ideology?

 

ralis

All I can say is that I know exactly what the difference is between the 'big space awareness' in which things come and go while the 'big space awareness' remains unaffected, and what 'non dual' is by experience where there is no separation between a perceiving subject and objects perceived. Edited January 1, 2010 by xabir2005

[ralis]

All I can say is that I know exactly what the difference is between the 'big space awareness' and what 'non dual' is by experience.

 

After months of debating Buddhism with Vajraji et al, that is the most honest clear answer I have seen.

 

 

Thanks

 

ralis

[xabir2005]

Edited January 1, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

btw. Imo Buddhism has not contained the truth in text and niether has Hinduism or any other teaching - even if the text was as perfectly written as it could be; at best such is a pointing to.

 

 

 

keep sharpening a knife and the edge is no good... or something like that

[C T]

A commentary on "Buddhism And The True Value of Reality" for anyone who may be interested.

Its a one page document, and touches on some relevant points with regards to how objectivity

is viewed from the writer's (a Vietnamese Buddhist scholar) perspective. This is presented

just after the comments on the 3 natures of beings.

 

http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/buddhism.htm

Edited January 1, 2010 by CowTao